Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Badminton Players Lakshya Sen & Chirag Sen Over Alleged Age Fabrication

The Supreme Court today (July 28) quashed a criminal case against Olympian Badminton players Lakshya Sen and Chirag Sen, booked for allegedly fabricating age records to gain unfair advantage in junior-level tournaments.

The Court said that the allegations labelled against the Sens were false and baseless, manifestly intended to malign the appellants.

“The appellants, particularly Appellant Nos. 1 and 3, are sportspersons of national standing, having represented India in international badminton tournaments and having earned multiple accolades, including medals at the Commonwealth Games and BWF international events. To compel such individuals who have maintained an unblemished record and brought distinction to the country through sustained excellence,to undergo the ordeal of a criminal trial in the absence of prima facie material would not subserve the ends of justice. The invocation of criminal law in such circumstances would amount to an abuse of process, which this Court cannot countenance.”, the Court said.

The bench comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar granted relief to Sen, after noting that the allegations lacked evidentiary merit, failed to satisfy the legal ingredients of criminal fraud, and appeared to be driven by personal vendetta.

FIR under Sections 420, 468, and 471 IPC was filed against Lakshya and Chirag, their parents, and coach U. Vimal Kumar of Prakash Padukone Badminton Academy for falsifying birth records for the purpose of securing benefits and selections in age-restricted Badminton tournaments.

The complaint was made by one Nagaraja M.G alleging that the age records were fabricated to gain unfair advantage in U-13 and U-15 age categories.

Setting aside the Karnataka High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Aravind Kumar noted that the complaint failed to disclose the basic ingredients of the offences alleged against the Appellants.

The Court noted that the entire edifice of the complaint is built upon a solitary document, the 1996 GPF nomination form—which is not only bereft of authentication, but also fails to establish any fraudulent intent or act attributable to the appellants. The Court also observed that the complainant was driven by vindictiveness as the complaint was filed after his daughter was denied admission in the Prakash Padukone Badminton Academy.

The Court further noted that the Sports Authority of India had earlier closed the matter after Lakhsya and Chirag underwent bone ossification and dental tests to ascertain their age at AIIMS Delhi.

“Insofar as the applicability of Sections 420, 468, and 471 IPC is concerned, the complaint does not disclose the basic elements required to attract these offences. There is no allegation that any of the appellants forged or fabricated a document, or that they knowingly used a forged document as genuine. Equally, there is no averment that any person or authority was dishonestly induced to part with property or confer a benefit as a result of any such act… The absence of any direct or indirect material linking the appellants to a culpable act or intention reinforces the conclusion that the allegations, even if taken at their highest, do not meet the threshold necessary to justify a criminal prosecution under the aforesaid provisions.”, the Court added.

The Court referenced Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749, to reiterate that summoning an accused in a criminal proceeding is a serious matter and should not be undertaken lightly.

“The present case is illustrative of how criminal process may be misused to achieve a collateral objective under the guise of legality.”, the court added.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the pending criminal proceedings stand quashed.

Cause Title: CHIRAG SEN AND ANOTHER ETC. VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 747

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.A. Sundram, Sr. Adv. Ms. Rohini Musa, AOR Mr. Badri Vishal, Adv. Mr. Ayush Negi, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Vikram Hegde, AOR Mr. Abhishek Wadiyar, Adv.